In the 1890 case of Callan v. Bransford, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that defendants in criminal contempt proceedings have a constitutional right to trial by jury under the Sixth Amendment if they face potential imprisonment or other serious penalties. The case arose when John Callan and others were charged with criminal contempt for violating an injunction issued by a federal court in Washington D.C., which prohibited them from interfering with certain property rights during ongoing litigation. They were tried without a jury and sentenced to jail terms ranging from one month to six months, prompting their appeal on constitutional grounds. In its decision, the Supreme Court held that although Congress had power over local legislation for District of Columbia, it could not deprive citizens there of fundamental rights guaranteed by Constitution such as right to trial by jury in serious criminal cases.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Callan v. Bransford argued that the Constitution does not guarantee a right to trial by jury for petty offenses, and thus disagreed with the majority's interpretation of this constitutional provision. The dissenters believed that historical precedent supported their view, pointing out that many minor crimes were tried without juries at common law and during colonial times. They also contended that practical considerations should influence how we interpret the Constitution; requiring a jury trial for every offense would place an undue burden on our judicial system. Furthermore, they asserted that allowing judges to decide minor cases could lead to more consistent outcomes than relying on juries composed of laypeople who may lack legal knowledge or experience.